The 1995 Redwoods Footage: This page contains the BBC article and on going comments by the late Richard Greenwell, Dr. Jeff Meldrum, Dave Bittner, Daniel Perez, Larry Lund and Robert Stansberry...the photo at right is an enhanced still frame of the subject as seen through the windshield of the recreational vehicle, probably one of the better still enhancements. . .
BIGFOOT: TAKE TWO
Source: 'BBC Wildlife' magazine, September 1998

In 1995, a film crew in Del Norte County, California claimed they caught another Bigfoot on camera...

RealVideo1 - the original video minus soundRealVideo2 - the above with Dave Bittner's enhancementsNote: you will need RealPlayer installed to view the above videos, you can get it here
- ---
Dr. Jeff Meldrum, Associate Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology, and the late Richard Greenwell, formerly secretariat of the International Society of Cryptozoology took a look at their evidence.

Misty clouds shroud the northern California coastline as twilight settles on the towering trees of the Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park. The date is 28 August, 1995. The driver of the long recreational vehicle (RV) pulls onto a small side road so that his passengers - a TV film crew from Waterland Productions can take a closer look at the majestic scenery. Music plays, beers froth and the ever-present video camera is running as the crewmembers relax after a long week's work.

Suddenly, the driver glimpses a shadowy movement at the periphery of the headlights. "Look! It's a f--ing bear!" he shouts to his companions. Eager to catch it on video, the cameraman zooms in on the retreating figure, Through the rain, the crew see what they take to be a massive, shaggy bear. It walks upright, arms swinging at its sides, around a slight bend in the road some 3om or so ahead. "Let's go get it!" someone shouts.

The driver accelerates forward as the hirsute figure glances warily back. But instead of the protruding snout of a bear, there is a flat, human-like face. "That's not a bear," one of them realizes. "What is that?" asks another. The driver brakes to an abrupt halt as, without warning, the apparition steps in front of the oncoming vehicle and crosses the road in the direction of the nearby Smith River. The headlights reveal a hair-covered giant, towering nearly 2.5m (8ft) tall. "Switch to full beam," someone urges. Taken aback by the bright beams, the figure raises its arms defensively, then moves with unhurried deliberate strides, pausing momentarily to glare back with a "what-the-hell-are-you-doing-here?" expression. "Oh my God ... it's Sasquatch!" someone exclaims. The astonished crew take in the sloping brow, broad flat nose, high flaring cheekbones and broad well-muscled neck and shoulders.

And then the giant vanishes behind a massive redwood tree. In all, less than 30 seconds have elapsed. Attempts to follow it are futile in the rainy darkness. The witnesses huddle in the RV to examine their video and assess their surreal experience. Driving back to Los Angeles, they wonder whether they should go public with their video - and risk the reactions of a skeptical audience, When challenged by an interviewer some months later, one of the witnesses resolutely replied: "I saw what I saw. That's all I can say."

What did they see? The Sasquatch, or Bigfoot, is a supposed giant primate from western North America. Its status is highly controversial. Footprints, eyewitness reports and a previous film shot in 1967 by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin - have failed to convince a skeptical scientific community, though some scientists retain an open mind on the subject. We approached the new footage in that spirit.

The video depicts a fleeting, dimly lit image of a bulky, striding, bipedal figure initially seen at some distance (about 32 metres) in the periphery of the headlights, then at close proximity (about 4.5m). One of our first objectives was to establish some scale by which we could determine the size of the subject. Starting from the factory specifications of the RV, we were quickly able to corroborate the witnesses' impression that the subject stood nearly 2.5m tall, After a site visit - and some careful measurement of trees visible in the video - we arrived at a height of about 2.3m. The subject in the video clearly wasn't just an ordinary man.

The next step was to compare the new video to the Patterson-Gimlin film shot in 1967. Several similarities were apparent - not only in facial features but also in body form and proportion. On the other hand, we were also impressed by some obvious differences. The Redwoods' video subject is apparently a male and has particularly long and shaggy hair, especially on the extremities, whereas Patterson and Gimlin filmed what appears to be a smaller female, with a sleeker coat and obvious breasts. Sex differences in hairiness are found in other primates, such as the orangutan.

After careful study of the Redwoods' video, we were able to discern numerous additional details. One series of frames, for instance, shows the action of the gluteal muscle of the buttock during walking. A shadowed furrow marks the insertion of the gluteal muscle. Above and forward of this region there is a reflective spot that could be shin with the hair rubbed off. This spot corresponds to a bony protuberance on the thighbone just below the skin surface known as the greater trochanter. This subtle detail appears in precisely the appropriate anatomical position, suggesting a worn spot acquired from sleeping side down or from rubbing a hip against a tree.

The Redwoods' film may also reveal an anatomical detail not reported previously in Sasquatch encounters -the male genitalia. As the subject passes in front of the RV, a reflective object can be seen at the front of the body, just below waist level. The object in question has a thick hair-covered base and a reflective, tapering portion that curves upward in a sickle shape. One interpretation is that the subject is displaying an erect penis, perhaps as a form of threat  as has been observed in some other apes.

As the subject vanishes into the darkness behind the redwood tree, we are afforded a last informative glimpse of the leg and foot. The heel is very broad, the ankle thick, and the calf lacks the characteristic taper and straight line of the human Achilles' tendon. Significantly, the heel of the visible trailing foot comes off the ground while the mid-foot appears to remain in contact with the ground until it pushes off and the entire foot swings forward. This is quite different from the action of the human foot, in which heel and mid-foot lift together, but characteristic of an ape's foot with its more flexible joints. All the signs are that the bipedal Sasquatch walks with a gait distinct from that of humans.

These are just the highlights of our analysis, which has encompassed on-site inspection, interviews with witnesses, consultation with video enhancement specialists and careful scrutiny of the subject in the film. In all this, we have detected nothing to falsify the testimony of the witnesses. In fact, we have noted numerous anatomical features on the video that are highly suggestive of and consistent with the image of a large, bipedal, non-human primate. Nevertheless, we always keep one overriding thought in mind when evaluating cryptozoological evidence: the witnesses were there and we weren't. It is certainly possible that the witnesses in this case - given their Hollywood connections- could have pulled off a spectacular hoax. It is even possible that all of the thousands of Sasquatch reports, including the hundreds of cases of tracks found, have been due to hoaxing (and perhaps some misidentifications).

In our view, there are only two hypotheses about the Sasquatch, both of which seem improbable. 0ne is that the Sasquatch doesn't exist and the thousands of reports are spurious. The other is that a giant, non-human, bipedal primate inhabits the forests of the US Pacific Northwest and western Canada and has so far eluded conventional scientific observation. One must decide for oneself, which is the less improbable of the two.

Meanwhile, the search for decisive proof continues. As this goes to press, we are embarking on our second month-long Bigfoot expedition, when we will be using infra-red light, invisible to primates' eyes, combined with special night-vision cameras. Perhaps, this time, we may bring back conclusive evidence that will settle the Bigfoot debate once and for all.

Footnotes:Reports of a supposed giant primate from North America first came to prominence in the late 1950s. Giant human-like footprints were found at road-construction sites as the wilderness of northern California was opened up to logging. The reports, documented by photographs and plaster casts, resulted in the name 'Bigfoot', but the creature was also known as 'Sasquatch', an Anglicized Indian name for 'wild people', first popularized in western Canada. Eyewitnesses related startling encounters with giant upright apes, but both the authorities and the scientific community ignored their stories.

The study of these and many subsequent track casts and the two films has revealed quite a bit about the possible anatomy of this supposed giant ape but much less about its possible behavior and ecology. Eyewitness reports - now numbering more than 2,000 and involving more than 3.000 witnesses - suggest that the Sasquatch could be a largely nocturnal, solitary, shy omnivore.

The fossil record affords a tantalizing clue to the biological identity of the Sasquatch. There once existed an ape that stood 2.5 - 2.75m tall and was possibly bipedal. This giant ape, known as Gigantopithecus, lived in Indochina, where three of its enormous fossilized jawbones and more than 1,000 isolated teeth have been found.

Gigantopithecus is thought to have become extinct as recently as 500,000 years ago (300,000 years ago according to some experts). Conceivably, it may have hung on until now, and today's Sasquatch could be descended from forms that crossed from Asia to North America via the Bering Land Bridge that connected the continents during the Ice Age. Dr. Jeff Meldrum & the late Richard Greenwell, 1995

Photo caption: A fleeting glimpse of a dimly lit figure, caught on video, but the film crew who saw it were convinced it was no ordinary man.

The artists impression (left) picks out some of the details: the creature lit by headlights is partly obscured by a car-seat as he walks in front of the redwood trees. Film was taken from midsection of the camper through the vehicle's windshield

Additional commentary: The crew of Adventures television were shooting an episode featuring a rive up the California coast highway in August 1995. The fifth and final day of shooting was in a redwood forest near Cresent City, in Del Norte County, CA. After finishing, the camera crew was breaking down he equipment and the other 5 were relaxing by driving around through the redwoods and partying. The music was up, they were goofing off for he hi-8 camera that they used for behind-the-scenes shots and just to generally document the trip when the beta cam wasn't on. They had turned into a narrow side road and realized there was nowhere to turn around. It was getting dark and had started to rain and they were finding it rather difficult to back the 34 ft. RV out.

At some point the driver spotted what he thought was a bear on the road about thirty-five yards ahead. Their first thought was wouldn't it to great to have some wildlife footage to include it the episode. But as the object walked at an angle across the road and away from them bipedally, arms swinging, they began to question whether it was a bear. They drove forward to within about 5 yards of it, when it retreated back across the road in the direction it had come, directly in front of the RV, the headlights illuminating it up to about the waist. It appears a little startled or intimidated by the RV and lights, but continues across the road to disappear behind a large redwood. Two of the witnesses immediately ran outside to try to get more footage but it was too dark and the forest was extremely dense.

What one sees on the video is a large (about 7.5 ft. tall) somewhat shaggy male "Sasquatch", that bears a striking resemblance to the subject of the Patterson-Gimlin film. In fact, I have juxtaposed frames from both in which the subjects are in similar poses and the similarity in posture, shape of head, configuration of neck and shoulders, proportions of torso and limbs, et., is very clear.

There are a number of anatomical features suggested on the video that are very intriguing -- head shape and position, genitalia (?), muscle definition and action, foot and ankle anatomy, and more. These observations alone are enough to cause me to give the video serious consideration. I have arranged for two independent enhancements of the video, giving particular scrutiny to the points I mentioned. There is a frame that should give some detail of facial features as well. We will have the results in the near future. I have also been at the site, personally interviewed one of the witnesses, and read the testimonies of the others. So far nothing to suggest any lack of credibility in their account. Dr. Jeff Meldrum
- ---

Notes from David Bittner, Pixel Workshop Inc, Maryland....I personally performed one of the image enhancement sessions to the above mentioned video footage. I was provided with a Beta SP, first generation dub from the Hi8 original. The footage was consistent with what one would expect to see from a Hi8 camcorder shooting under low-light conditions, with a large amount of chroma noise.

We digitized the footage and tried several different kinds of image enhancement, including level and gamma adjustments, magnification, slow motion, noise reduction, as well as an edge enhancing unsharp mask filter. Several combinations of the above techniques were used, each yielding various degrees of enhancement.

The low contrast and high noise of the footage made the enhancement process difficult at best. Still, we were able to see many details with more clarity than was possible in the original footage. Our analysis of the footage reveals nothing that would indicate a hoax. There is no visible evidence of a costume, and there is nothing that indicates any doctoring of the video or other use of special visual effects. A major television network is currently in production of a Bigfoot documentary that will include the Redwoods Footage, and they are performing an independent enhancement of the footage.

Then some one pointed out Dr. Jeff Meldrum's quite appropriate renaming of what was at first called the "Playboy Bigfoot video" to the "Redwoods video" (so it would be taken more seriously), the origins are with a Playboy model videotaping. The Playboy Playmate was Anna Marie Goddard by the way.

"1995, near Cresent City, California a television production crew from Los Angeles videotaped what appears to be a Bigfoot crossing a forest road in front of their RV. Among the crew was a Playboy model who subsequently appeared on the Jay Leno show and Hardcopy to discuss the incident."
- ---More trivia on the Redwoods Film:

Speaking of Bigfoot, Playboy Playmate Anna Marie Goddard was in the woods with a film crew, shooting some footage for a Playboy TV special, when a panting, hairy-palmed creature (no, not a Playboy subscriber) reportedly ran across the road in front of their car. Someone grabbed a home video camera and got a jerky, fuzzy, dark, fleeting shot of the Sasquatch.

Ms. Goddard told Jay Leno that the tape was handed over to a team of "cryptozoologists" (my favorite useless "I'm-here-to-waste-my-parents'-money" college major, until I heard last week about a British language student who's getting a B.A. in Klingon) who determined from its "large appendage" that it was a male (you'd think the Playmate would've figured that out). At least now, we know it's true what they say about men with Big Feet. Naturally, this story was covered by Hard Copy, in their inimitable overblown style. As the dramatic music, heavy on the booming kettle drums, played, their hyperventilating announcer screeched, "It's the PLAYMATE . . . AAAAND! . . . The PRIMATE!!!!"
I laughed so hard, I fell off my rocking chair. http://www.ntskeptics.org/1995/1995december/december1995.htm This Trivia is Copyright "The Newsletter of The North Texas Skeptics" Volume 9 Number 12 - ---
When 'Hard Copy' first aired the video on November 10, 1995 the story was showcased as "The Playmate and the Primate" host Terry Murphy referred to it as "the exclusive video of Beauty and the Beast" which also served as a report title...

In a December 22, 1995 post to the IVBC (subject line re: Hard Copy) Jeff Meldrum expressed the need for "another designation of the incident".

Prior to that it had been discussed as the Hard Copy video/footage or playmate video. On January 10 1996
( subject line: Redwoods update) Jeff Meldrum first used the phrase "Redwoods video" on the IVBC - which may or may not be the origin. .....R.Stansberry posted April 28, 2002
- ---
More ..... With regard to the videotape made by Craig Miller on August 28, 1995, around 8:30 p.m. the term "Playmate Video" or "Redwoods Video" were at the time, interchangeable - just like Sasquatch and Bigfoot - but it means the same
thing.

Historically speaking the film shot in 1963 in Dallas, Texas is widely known as the Zapruder film and the film shot in 1967 in Bluff Creek, California is commonly referred to as the Patterson-Gimlin film. So, one is
inclined to wonder why the videotape shot in northern California is not called the "Miller videotape."

Dr. Jeff Meldrum and Richard Greenwell were on site to investigate the Redwoods videotape and I didn't have an
opportunity to get there until December 1995. All three of us, though, were of a very positive opinion about the videotape, and I later went down and interviewed the videographer, Craig Miller, who lives in southern
California, which only reinforced my opinion of the case. Interestingly, Peter Byrne, the late Rene Dahinden and Larry Lund were of an opposite opinion, that the videotape was a hoax, yet not one of them ever bothered
themselves to interview the witnesses. Not one of them ever conducted on-site investigation. Byrne even went so far as to say the subject in the videotape was wearing sneakers, yet the claim was never substantiated with photographic information to back up such a claim. ...Daniel Perez- ---
..and More:
Re: Redwoods video

Perhaps some more detailed notes should be kept. Not only did I talk to two of the Playmate participants within four days of the airing of the show, I also contacted the program staff and obtained an uncut version of the videotape shot in the motor home just prior to and leading thru the "Sighting Incident." The group was clearly in a party mode and a large percentage of the language was unfit for TV viewing.

Peter Byrne and his Bigfoot Research Project, also obtained information within a couple days and did in-depth research into the sighting. The difference between what we saw, Peter, Rene Dahinden and I, is that we found it to be quite false.

I even showed Dan Perez when he stayed at my place, that the subject could not have been very tall, as you had to look down at an extreme angle from the motor home windshield. Perez and I re-enacted that one by using his own motor home. If the creature were as tall as even 8 feet, it would have been looking straight into the drivers face. It was not...it was below the bottom edge of the windshield.

Perez commented to me then..."You're right...it couldn't have been that tall!" Also did a demo with the headlights, as it clearly shows in the video that they turn on the brights.

They later said in a couple interviews that the creature was no more than 9 feet from the front bumper of the motor home. Perez and I re-enacted that also. I stood there at the correct distance, measured by Dan and he turned on his bright lights. The beams hit me at exactly the same height as it did on the subject in the video. I am 5 feet 7 inches tall. It should have hit much lower on a creature 8 foot plus in height. Dan immediately agreed with me again. I then showed the video I had acquired from the studio to him several times, confirming what our experiments showed us. I also pointed out that just before the creature crosses from left to right, you can see something walk from right to left up in the top right hand corner of the screen. Again amazement and agreement that this video was definitely in doubt of being anything more than a hoax.

As all related material goes, it is all subject to opinion and none have ever been proven fact. I just wanted the facts to be known that Peter Byrne and I did investigate this incident and along with many who viewed our results, I feel this was just another hoax. ...Larry Lund posted Monday, April 29, 2002
- ---And this additional information.....
From the IVBC discussion list: The "Redwoods footage" 1995
Del Norte County, California, Near Cresent City:

The crew of Adventures television were shooting an episode featuring a drive up the California coast highway in August 1995. The fifth and final day of shooting was in a redwood forest near Cresent City, in Del Norte County, California. After finishing, the camera crew were breaking down the equipment and the other 5 were relaxing by driving around through the redwoods and partying. The music was up, they were goofing off for the hi-8 camera that they used for behind-the-scenes shots and just to generally document the trip when the betacam wasn't on. They had turned onto a narrow side road and realized there was nowhere to turn around. It was getting dark and had started to rain and they were finding it rather difficult to back the 34 ft. RV out.

At some point the driver spotted what he thought was a bear on the road about thirty-five yards ahead. Their first thought was wouldn't it to great to have some wildlife footage to include it the episode. But as the object walked at an angle across the road and away from them bipedally, arms swinging, they began to question whether it was a bear. They drove forward to within about 5 yards of it, when it retreated back across the road in the direction it had come, directly in front of the RV, the headlights illuminating it up to about the waist. It appears a little startled or intimidated by the RV and lights, but continues across the road to disappear behind a large redwood. Two of the witnesses immediately ran outside to try to get more footage but it was too dark and the forest was extremely dense.

What one sees on the video is a large (about 7.5 ft. tall) somewhat shaggy male "Sasquatch", that bears a striking resemblence to the subject of the Patterson-Gimlin film. In fact, I have juxtaposed frames from both in which the subjects are in similar poses and the similarity in posture, shape of head, configuration of neck and shoulders, proportions of torso and limbs, et., is very clear.

There are a number of anatomical features suggested on the video that are very intriguing -- head shape and position, genitalia (?), muscle definition and action, foot and ankle anatomy, and more. These observations alone are enough to cause me to give the video serious consideration. I have arranged for two independent enhancements of the video, giving particular scrutiny to the points I mentioned. There is a frame that should give some detail of facial features as well. We will have the results in the near future. I have also been at the site, personally interviewed one of the witnesses, and read the testimonies of the others. So far nothing to suggest any lack of credibility in their account. ...Jeff Meldrum

Notes from David Bittner, Pixel Workshop Inc.
I personally performed one of the image enhancement sessions to the above mentioned video footage. I was provided with a Beta SP, first generation dub from the Hi8 original. The footage was consistant with what one would expect to see from a Hi8 camcorder shooting under low-light conditions, with a large amount of chroma noise.

We digitized the footage and tried several different kinds of image enhancement, including level and gamma adjustments, magnification, slow motion, noise reduction, as well as an edge enhancing unsharp mask filter. Several combinations of the above techniques were used, each yielding various degrees of enhancement.

The low contrast and high noise of the footage made the enhancement process difficult at best. Still, we were able to see many details with more clarity than was possible in the original footage.

Our analysis of the footage reveals nothing that would indicate a hoax. There is no visible evidence of a costume, and there is nothing that indicates any doctoring of the video or other use of special visual effects.

A major television network is currently in production of a bigfoot documentary that will include the Redwoods Footage, and they are performing an independant enhancement of the footage.
- ---

Portions of this website are reprinted and sometimes edited to fit the standards of this website under the Fair Use Doctrine of International Copyright Law
as educational material without benefit of financial gain. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html This proviso is applicable throughout the entire Bigfoot Encounters Website.